On the Infinite God Objection: a Reply to Jacobus Erasmus and Anné Hendrik Verhoef
Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist; (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible; and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): for any proposition p, if God conscious...
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Altri autori: | |
| Tipo di documento: | Elettronico Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Pubblicazione: |
[2016]
|
| In: |
Sophia
Anno: 2016, Volume: 55, Fascicolo: 2, Pagine: 263-272 |
| Notazioni IxTheo: | AB Filosofia delle religioni NBC Dio |
| Altre parole chiave: | B
Kalam Cosmological Argument
B Omniscience B Infinite God objection B Abstract objects |
| Accesso online: |
Accesso probabilmente gratuito Volltext (Publisher) Volltext (doi) |
| Riepilogo: | Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist; (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible; and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): for any proposition p, if God consciously thinks about p, God will either accept p as true if and only if p is true, or accept p as false if and only if p is false. I argue that there is insufficient motivation for showing (1) and (2) and that (G) is problematic as a definition of omniscience. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Riferimento: | Kritik von "The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Infinite God Objection (2015)"
Kritik in "Loke on the Infinite God Objection (2018)" |
| Comprende: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-016-0539-8 |
